New Post
Search
Help
ArchivesSuffix II or III - which is correct
I am pregnant with our first boy and we plan to name him Richard Scrivner Shortall, after his paternal grandfather, Richard Scrivner Shortall Jr. My husband is a twin and out of fairness, they did not name one twin after the father. So essentially this kid will be the third in our family with that exact name. RSS Sr is dead, RSS jr is still alive, and now we have a family debate as to whether this child will be the II or III.
Does III indicate son of Jr? If so, is there an official way to denote that the name has skipped a generation? Or, do we call this kid II because he is named for his grandfather, regardless of the fact that his grandfather is a Jr?
Does III indicate son of Jr? If so, is there an official way to denote that the name has skipped a generation? Or, do we call this kid II because he is named for his grandfather, regardless of the fact that his grandfather is a Jr?
1
Replies
Actually etiquette books will tell you that your child should be II, but they will also tell you that RSS Jr should now NOT be "Jr" because the original "Sr" is deceased. The original idea of "correctness" is that when someone died everyone else moved up a notch; Jr becomes Sr, III becomes Jr, IV becomes III.
Now almost no one really does it that way because in reality it would be too confusing in terms of signing legal documents and other issues. But that's the way they used to tell you was "correct."
Now almost no one really does it that way because in reality it would be too confusing in terms of signing legal documents and other issues. But that's the way they used to tell you was "correct."
1
I've seen that mentioned before as the technically correct way to do things, which I always find so interesting and odd because I've never once seen it practiced that way in real life!
1
He'd be a III because the Jr. is the second one. The only time you'd use II is if you were naming after a grandfather and there was no Jr.
This message was edited 4/21/2012, 3:30 AM
1
or if you wanted to avoid the stigma of a JR.
There was a discussion on the board a while back about how Jrs. tend to be bad students or something like that.
There was a discussion on the board a while back about how Jrs. tend to be bad students or something like that.
1
??
I missed that and don't at all agree with it and didn't know there was even any stigma out there. I've never seen it.
I missed that and don't at all agree with it and didn't know there was even any stigma out there. I've never seen it.
1
This comes from research published in 1980 done by Richard Zweigenhaft and his colleagues showing that college men with "Jr." after their names scored significantly lower than those with "II" after their names on scales of "Capacity for Status", "Well-Being", and "Intellectual Efficiency."
The problem seems to be in the word "junior" itself. "Junior" always sounds inferior to "Senior", and especially if the child is called "Junior" as his nickname, that gives the impression that he's someone who's never really going to "grow up" psychologically. The Roman numerals have no such connotation.
The problem seems to be in the word "junior" itself. "Junior" always sounds inferior to "Senior", and especially if the child is called "Junior" as his nickname, that gives the impression that he's someone who's never really going to "grow up" psychologically. The Roman numerals have no such connotation.
1
Interesting.
1